...to push it back into the ocean when it strands on dry land ?

I like the cirrus jet concept and as a practical matter I like most everything about the plane, but i'm not sure i could stand to look at it every day

What part of the game did it change?

I can't find anything an SF-50 does better than a TBM. The TBM is faster, longer range, uses shorter runways, burns less fuel, and requires less training.

It satisfies "I want a jet for ego reasons", but it falls short on "I want a jet to go faster, higher, further".

If I traded in my 45 year old MU2 for an SF-50, there is literally not a single new capability I would get, and I lost payload, range, and runway capability in the exchange.

You aren't going to see droves of current turboprop and jet owners getting one. There's nothing the SF-50 does for them. Brand loyal piston drivers will be almost the entire market for it.

Mike C.

Jeff:

It must be a wind tunnel engineered design. It does seem that they just cut off the cabin and stuck on a tail as soon as they could. I think the 300 knot cruise was the goal.

They should have put a picture of the Duke on the wall and made a better attempt at attractive lines.

KJ

Try it sometime.

Not only is the SF-50 twice the weight, but it has far more massive brakes which generate residual drag.

SF-50 full fuel is ~5500 lbs.

Realistically, the SF-50 requires a motorized tug of some sort. Once you have that, then the heavier airplanes are not a big deal, either.

Mike C.

Mike

I wouldn’t think most turbine aircraft would fit in a standard T Hangar. The MU-2’s tail is over 13’. I wasn’t thinking of the weight as much as the footprint.

Jack

Not the case. I have a C425 that weighs nearly 8000 lbs with full fuel and I pull it out of my T hangar with a Supertow 2x per week. You don't need a tug or a Lektro unless you are going long distance. I used to pull my 6000 lb Commander with a little battery powered tow bar. If you are just getting it from inside the hangar to outside, no big deal.

I suspect they will sell a lot of them. They seem like good planes, I also think probably all the Cirrus planes are probably good planes. No, I don't own one.

They will sell them for many of the same reasons most people buy the SR20 and SR22. Those reasons vary but a huge focus on marketing and providing features that the spouse will say "I like that one the best because of xxx" when it is time to decide.

xxx can be:
...it has a chute
...it looks cool or is cute or
...high tech panel or
...interior is better or
...two doors or
...has air conditioning or
...something else

Nothing wrong with that, I wish the other airplane companies would use some more skillful marketing sometimes.

Very slight correction - you need 3 hours dual for the checkride.

ref. 61.129(b)(3)(v)

What does a SF50-G2 do better than a TBM940?

$4.15MM, vs $2.3MM. (base equipment to base equipment)

That's a lot of MM's.

The G2 is certified to FL310 and increased the cruise speed to 311kts and improved range to 1200nm, or improved payload of 150lbs for 800nm range.

It's also a good bit smaller and will fit in a lot more hangars.

I'm not knocking the TBM. It has a lot good things going for it. It is a bit faster and has a bit more range burning a bit less per hour. I don't know the TBM's runway performance, but the SF 50 is not a runway hog.

I haven't sat in nor flown a TBM. Looks like a great plane.

I have spent time in a PA46. The SF50 is a lot more comfortable, at least for me.

I think the SF50 competes more directly with the M600 and each has some good points for the same money. The SF50 has better cabin pressure and speed, the M600 has better range and burns less fuel.

I dunno, I'm not in the market, as much as I wish I was.

But the SF50 makes a good case.

The 500 plus order backlog and facts vs TBM above make me wonder if the Cirrus Jet price is going to go up significantly in the near future.

It is cool because it is low cost (relatively speaking). I hope they keep the cost down.

KJ

A couple things the TBM or M600/Meridian does better is hot and high takeoff distance/climb performance and contaminated runway stopping distance. The SF50 requires 7270' takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle at a 6,000' elevation airport on a 30* day (KTRK in the summer) compared to the Meridians 4050' of distance. The SF50 will then climb at 839FPM vs. the Meridian's 1400FPM.

I don't know of any charts that state what the Meridian's landing distance is on a contaminated runway with reverse, but if you'd ever done it you would agree that it must be half or less that of any jet without thrust reversers.

I wonder the same. However, I hope Cirrus has the Amazon mindset and is more interested in market share than margins. That would be good for us all.

I wonder the same. However, I hope Cirrus has the Amazon mindset and is more interested in market share than margins. That would be good for us all.

That's a motorized tug. You need something other than human force.

With a motor, you can move an MU2 and many other turbines.

Mike C.

Look at how much better just 3000 ft makes it. Now imagine how much better it would have been if it could fly at FL410.

The EA500 provides an example, 370 knots, faster *and* more efficient *and* safer.


A Winnebago is a lot more comfortable than an SF-50. So buy that instead.

The comfort of a real jet is that you are in it for less time and have to stop less often. Part of that comfort is flying higher over more weather.


It could have made a much better case if not for the fact it was conceived by piston misconceptions. It has trouble being comparable to a turboprop, much less delivering true jet capability and performance.

Mike C.